Random testing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:44, 26 July 2018

Revision as of 07:15, 16 November 2018

Line 64:

The following weaknesses are typically pointed out by detractors:

*It only finds basic bugs (f.ex. [[null pointer]] dereferencing).

*It is only as precise as the specification and specifications are typically imprecise.

*Some argue that it wouldis bemore betterreadable to thoughtfully cover alldescribe relevant cases with manually constructed tests in a white-box fashion, than to rely on randomness.<ref name="so" />

*ItSome think it compares poorly with other techniques to find bugs (f.ex. [[static program analysis]]).

*If different inputs are randomly selected on each test run, this can create problems for [[continuous integration]] because the same tests will pass or fail randomly.<ref name="so">{{cite web|url=http://stackoverflow.com/questions/636353/is-it-a-bad-practice-to-randomly-generate-test-data|title=Is it a bad practice to randomly-generate test data?|website=stackoverflow.com|accessdate=15 November 2017}}</ref>

*ItSome think it only finds basic bugs (f.ex. [[null pointer]] dereferencing).

*Some argue that it would be better to thoughtfully cover all relevant cases with manually constructed tests in a white-box fashion, than to rely on randomness.<ref name="so" />

*If different inputs are randomly selected on each test run, this(by canusing createan problemsunseeded forrandom [[continuousnumber integration]] becausegenerator), the same tests will pass or fail randomly.<ref name="so">. {{cite web|url=http://stackoverflow.com/questions/636353/is-it-a-bad-practice-to-randomly-generate-test-data|title=Is it a bad practice to randomly-generate test data?|website=stackoverflow.com|accessdate=15 November 2017}}</ref>

==Types of random testing==